Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 19 to 30, “Amendments to other legislation”, and Schedules 2 and 3. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Part 2, Subpart 1, clause 25 inserts new section 118A into the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992. The new section 118A sets out what the agency must do if it identifies a discrepancy in information received that is relevant for the purposes of ascertaining the appropriateness of the income-related rent that a person is or was paying. Now, I’ve got a few concerns about this particular clause, and I think others may take issue with this clause—and probably every other clause in here too.

The concern that I have is that the agency, if there is a discrepancy between the two tenants—let’s say there’s a lead tenant and there is someone else living at the property—with regards to how much they are paying for board, then the agency needs to take certain steps. Now, the steps—and I do need to give the context, otherwise what my concerns are is not going to make much sense for the Minister for Social Development and Employment, and the questions won’t either.

The agency “must notify A and B of the particulars of the discrepancy as soon as reasonably practicable”; if the discrepancy is not resolved to the agency’s satisfaction within 10 working days from the date on which the agency notified A and B of the particulars of this discrepancy, the agency must, on the first working day after the end of the 10-working-day period, provide notification to the social housing provider under section 106 that is applicable: “(a) the rent for the housing must be its market rent for the time being, in accordance with section 72(3); or (b) the rent for the housing [must] be determined by the registered community housing provider but must not exceed its market rent for the time being, in accordance with section 92(3).” What I want to know from the Minister is: what’s the difference?

I’m assuming that (a) is referring to Kāinga Ora tenants, and there’s no discrepancy there for Kāinga Ora to make a determination of rent being anything less than market rent. Yet a registered community housing provider for the related rent is going to be able to have discrepancy to set it at a different rate to the market rent. I want to know from the Minister: what is the difference, and why could Kāinga Ora or the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) not have that same level of discretion to make a determination which means that it isn’t market rent?

I also want to know, because obviously there’s always issues—or not always, but there can be issues—with people that are sharing accommodation. What happens if it is found that, actually, there is a reason for the discrepancy? Perhaps the tenant also—one of them—was not able to be contacted. These are often working New Zealanders. They could perhaps be out of the country or not contactable at the time that they’re being contacted about this to have the discrepancy sorted. Is there some kind of provision for them to be reimbursed if the decision is made because of the discrepancy to lift it to the market rent level, given human nature, life happens, sometimes people are not contactable?

So two very simple questions. We just want to make sure that the safeguards are in place for normal, real-life situations and also want to understand why there would be a different level of discretion for community housing providers versus the State when it comes to determining the level of rent in these situations. Why is it that the State would just immediately move to market rent, even though they could have information that shows that, even if the worst-case scenario in terms of the differences for how much board is being paid—perhaps it doesn’t even meet the test for market rent? So why the difference?

And then also, in the instance that they have a good reason for the fact that they were not able to support with getting this resolved within the time frame, will there be a reimbursement so that these people—or person—are not out of pocket?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just some quick questions because we will have quite a few of them, so I’ll keep them brief in the hope that I’ll get more calls.

To supp on the question of the previous speaker, Carmel Sepuloni, I do have, in fact, an Amendment Paper that might resolve it for the Minister. So instead of having, “within 10 working days”, just to be able to get some discretion back into this bill, because we’re seeing how Draconian it is, an easy and elegant solution would be my Amendment Paper, which says, “to replace ‘10 working days’ with ‘a reasonable time’ ”, given all the circumstances of (a) and (b). So each time 10 working days is mentioned, just to elegantly insert that, and that does give the Ministry of Social Development discretion, but it also means it’s going to be reasonable that taxpayers know that they will use that in a good way.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just check with the member what—

INGRID LEARY: This is referring to new section 118A and then subsection (3) and subsection (3)(a). Also in subsection (b)—I’ll refer to that one first since we’re there: it talks about “must not exceed its market rent for the time being”. I’m just wondering what that means, because it’s also referred to in clause 20, “Section 73 amended”, and it says, about Kāinga Ora homes, that it must be market rent “for the time being”. That is a really loose term and doesn’t provide any certainty for those who are impacted by it. I’m wondering what the policy reason is for that, and whether there could be a tighter definition, or is this going to be just something that’s just going to go on and on and on—there’s no certainty for those who are impacted; or is the Minister referring to the time being, because, perhaps, it’s been referred to in some other legislation that we don’t have in front of us? I will have more contributions, Madam Chair.

I think the previous speaker, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, answered her own question in terms of why it was market rates for Kāinga Ora. The simple answer is that they set the market rent, so that is why they’re separate. Community housing providers have targeted support for their cohorts. They are independent contracted services, and their agreements specify that they are able to determine the rent. So they are able to determine it being less than the market rent.

In terms of these disputes, I did refer to this in terms of Part 1. I said that I would not be entertaining any changes around any time frames, so I’m not going to repeat myself there. Ten days is to provide certainty for the two parties that are in dispute.

The previous member raised the suggestion that if somebody had gone overseas and they weren’t contactable—well, if they were a boarder that had gone overseas, they’re clearly not eligible for the accommodation supplement because they are out of the country. The housing arrangement now doesn’t exist; the housing arrangement has been null and void. So, therefore, it’s pretty clear what would happen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is our first call in relation to clause 25. I did want to touch on the answer the Minister just gave in relationship to the disparity that has been unpacked in relationship to community housing providers and State housing providers. I wanted to ask—the Minister just talked about how community housing providers don’t have, I guess, the same level of access to just determine the market rate rent. But I did wonder whether—and I ask this because, again, we would be able to ask this in the select committee, should this have not been progressed under urgency and we could have just gotten some answers in writing from the agency, quite likely, and we would have been able to even summon, potentially, Kāinga Ora or invited community housing providers to submit around what, if any, analysis does the Minister have in relationship to the distribution of what market rate rents are for community housing providers across the country.

Because I worry that, for example, the way that this has been laid out—and particularly, too, the ability to either set the rent for the housing at market rent for the time being or determined by the community housing provider but not exceed its market rent. I did wonder whether that could inevitably lead to community housing providers acting in a punitive manner because of that ability that they would have to determine which option they use—something that Kāinga Ora wouldn’t have. What safeguards has the Minister created to avoid community housing providers potentially choosing to act punitively?

And then I’m keen to understand if the Minister asked for a range of market rents that community providers, housing providers, could lay out. I ask this because this is really tied to a lot of the analysis that’s been provided around low-income people being affected by this. If we have a community housing provider in an area that has been gentrified recently and is facing higher than previous market rents when, for example, the tenant moved in, the material impact that people could face if a community housing provider puts the rent up to market rate could be disastrous. It could push people out. So I’m really curious to know as to whether the Minister did ask for the range of market rents that exist for people and community housing providers.

The other thing that I wanted to ask in relationship to this clause is what level of consultation, if any, she did have with community housing providers across the country on this specific clause. I think that we did see in the analysis there was limited stakeholder engagement. It’d be good to know—because beneficiary advocates, for example, in that analysis, provided really critical feedback. They didn’t seem to like her proposals. She didn’t seem to care. But I’m curious to know as to whether—and that is in the paper; it’s not just my opinion, by the way. They were critical—that’s in the paper itself. But I am curious to know what engagement she had with community housing providers around the provisions in clause 25. If she did not have any engagement with community housing providers specifically around giving them those two options, how is she satisfied that these will be suitable for them if she did not consult with them? So I’m keen to test the level of assurances that were given by those providers.

And, secondly, does she think that community housing providers will need additional resourcing or staffing to then be able to have the capacity and the ability to determine this? Will her ministry then be engaging with community housing providers to communicate that now they will be having these two options and how will she ensure that these are applied rightly so? And if, for example, a tenant isn’t satisfied with the option the community housing provider has chosen, will they have a recourse and ability to challenge this decision made by the community housing provider? Again, these are all questions we could have unpacked at the select committee stage more thoroughly, but none the less they deserve scrutiny right now.

Thank you. It is just a quick follow-up. Just making sure that I heard the Minister for Social Development and Employment correctly—that she said you could not travel overseas and maintain or retain eligibility for the accommodation supplement. Can she clarify that? Because I’m looking online—and maybe this bill changes it; we only just got it recently, so we haven’t had a chance to traverse it as much as she has—but online, it says you can continue receiving the accommodation supplement for up to 28 days while you’re overseas, if you still need to pay for accommodation costs.

Obviously, the point of me asking this is that, if there is a discrepancy between tenants and there is an attempt to try and ascertain what is right there, if one’s not even in the country and able to respond, does that mean that their rent will automatically be shifted without them having an ability to impact that, and then will they be reimbursed? But I do need to ask her to clarify what she was saying earlier, because what I heard seems to be at odds with the advice that I see online.

No, because the member referred to the fact that if there was a dispute and someone was overseas and couldn’t be contacted—how would they resolve that dispute?—and I was simply saying if they’d abandoned that, if they’d gone overseas and were no longer in contact, if they’d been out of the country for a period of time beyond that, then clearly the housing relationship had ended.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to come back to some of the questions that were asked earlier tonight, but I’ve actually got a new amendment. So I want to come to clause 20, replacing section 73(4) of the Public and Community Housing Management Act in terms of, in the case of an increase in rent, consideration is given to the principles of the Treaty. The Minister has not yet once responded to any questions with regards to Māori, tikanga Māori, partnership, consultation with iwi, consultation with NGOs. I have consulted with colleagues around the House, and it is a concern that she continues to ignore the question, given the negative statistics that we’re dealing with all the time in this area. So we’re talking, as I keep saying, about the high Māori unemployment, which has gone up to 10.5 percent, I believe, and that was an increase—no increase in terms of unemployment in terms of the general stats, but in terms of Māori unemployment stats—

Ryan Hamilton: What’s the question?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, you should have been listening earlier, but I’ll repeat it just for you, since you’ve got problems with your ears. So the question is, as I said—just for that member; I don’t mind repeating it at all—it’s: will she consider amending section 73(4) to “In the case of an increase in rent, that consideration be given to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”—which I know the National Party values and supports very much, unless David Seymour asks them otherwise.

I say that seriously because we’ve had a number of questions tonight that the Minister has not answered with regards to partnerships and relationships with Māori. I know, herself, where she’s based, she probably—I assume—would have a relationship with Tūwharetoa. I’m asking that, given the statistics, given the pressures on te ao Māori, given what’s been happening lately, that due consideration is given to this amendment that has been put up, and also understanding that if you’re supporting the principles of the Treaty, you’re talking about participation, you’re talking about partnership, you’re talking about working with Māori—when, where, how, who has the Minister spoken with; which NGO, which iwi? Has she consulted with her local iwi? Has there been a process of consultation on this, given the ramifications and consequences, which are huge for Māori?

The other thing, of course, is that it is actually in the Ministry of Social Development supplementary analysis report in terms of Māori being overrepresented in all areas, Māori being disproportionately impacted by the reduction in financial support available to households with boarders—Māori are overrepresented according to the report, and social housing. So this would surely be one of the referencing points for the Minister—and it’s very, very clear about the adverse impacts on Māori at the moment, and yet tonight we have not received one response from the Minister with regards to obligations from the Government on that, and hence that’s why we’re putting up this very, very reasonable amendment at this time, replacing clause 20, amending section 73(4), with references to principles of the Treaty. I’m giving the Minister an opportunity, and this Government—and the National Party, in particular—a chance to free themselves from the nonsense from the ACT Party, who continually want to get rid of any references with regards to the Treaty right across legislation.

So I would ask the Minister for a reply, a response, to that amendment which has been put up now and, of course, has been put up earlier—and, of course, much kōrero about te ao Māori, with no response. I put that to the Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair; I appreciate that greatly. I wish to talk to a point that the Green Party haven’t had a chance to speak to in this Part 2 yet. It does build on what the Hon Willie Jackson was speaking about, but it is a new and distinct point.

The Hon Willie Jackson was referring, of course, in the Ministry of Social Development’s report, the supplementary analysis report, to page 23, when referring to distributional impacts for Māori. My focus, instead, is on page 26 and relates to clause 23 of Part 2, around section 107, which is around calculating income-related rent.

I have concerns that I’d seek clarification and also some reassurance from the Minister on regarding the risk that the report outlines of the Crown breaching obligations under the articles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. So this is distinct from the discussion around principles, which has been referred to by the previous speaker in regards to an amendment. I’m interested in how the Minister—I’m just interested in the Minister’s response: I was hoping the Minister could reassure me of how she will mitigate the risk of breaches that the Crown might make of its obligations to the Treaty?

Now, my concerns come from the fact that we know from census data from 2023 that, per 10,000 Māori, 394 Māori are living in severe housing deprivation. This social determinant is disproportionately impacting on that population group, that demographic.

This is, potentially, a breach of Crown obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi as outlined in this Ministry of Social Development (MSD) document.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We’re not debating Treaty breaches. We’re debating, in the clause you’ve referred to, income-related rents.

BENJAMIN DOYLE: Yes.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. I’d like to seek your clarification on that very interjection, because this is a bill that’s under urgency. We did not have a select committee period. The MSD advisers specifically quote that. So I’d like to seek some genuine good-faith guidance on how you would like us to approach bringing up issues that could have been raised at select committee, as normally is allowed during scrutiny of the committee of the whole House during urgency—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We are debating parts and sections in Part 2, and we are straying away from income-related rent calculations into another field. I’m just bringing the speaker—the member—back to the part of the bill that he started.

Ingrid Leary: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): No, we’re just going to carry on.

BENJAMIN DOYLE: Thank you. That’s fine. I’ll quickly wrap it up with my question. So in regards to my concerns around the adjustments to income-related rents: the point is that Māori, we know, earn less, and so therefore are more likely, as the report says, to be disproportionately affected by this change. I’m seeking assurance from the Minister on how she will make sure that that disproportionate effect does not take place?

Stuart Smith: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to draw your attention to Standing Order 316 around amendments of member in charge. So, essentially, what we have is a whole lot of amendments that are similar. Under Speaker’s rulings 111/3, it says quite clearly if they’re having a similar effect or can be grouped together and voted on as one. I would submit to you, Madam Chair, that we have had many examples of that through this debate and that there are many that are on the Table that are similar. They should be grouped together and voted on as one—not being taken with a couple of words different.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I understand the point of order. I’ll talk to the Clerks about that.

Stuart Smith: Yes, well I’ve already spoken to the Clerks. So I think it’s very clear under the Standing Orders. It’s very clear under the Speakers’ directions here. I think it’s crystal clear, actually.

Tangi Utikere: Speaking to the point of order. I thank Mr Smith for acknowledging that. However, that’s a matter that should be addressed when it comes to presiding officer determining how votes are taken at what point they’re taken, which is obviously a matter for your discretion.

Joseph Mooney: Speaking to the point of order.

Maureen Pugh: Is it relevant?

Joseph Mooney: It is. The chairperson may select a handful of indicative amendments on which to put a question in order to test the will of the committee. I’ve asked before, a couple of times, for the vote to consider putting in a selection of indicative amendments.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you, I understand the point of order.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In light of the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s previous answer to my colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni regarding the difference between the accommodation supplement and a benefit, I just want to be really clear that the Minister is basically saying that there will be some kind of—in a way, it’s a parity between the accommodation supplement, which working people can get; so if they were to go overseas, for example, to a funeral, under the legislation—and given the answer that you have just given to my colleague—if there was a discrepancy, without even the discrepancy being resolved, there would be a 10-day period and then they would no longer be eligible. That is quite a different policy from how we see the accommodation supplement currently, and it also puts a different burden of proof, because there is an entitlement to the accommodation supplement, which now is basically taken away without the facts being established.

So my question is: did she really intend that answer, and is that really her policy intent? If it is not, then perhaps she could consider an amendment. I do not have one on the floor; I could draft one. But it would be relatively simple to have another subsection that just said, “In the event of overseas travel or other activities that would prevent the discrepancy from being resolved, the Ministry of Social Development would have a discretion to be able to extend that period.” Otherwise, this is an incredibly big change to the policy, which is now saying that working people are being treated the same as those who are beneficiaries in terms of what their entitlements are. I can’t believe the Minister is intending that, and I would really like to seek her clarification. If that is her intention, I promise I won’t ask further questions about it.

The comment I made to the question from Carmel Sepuloni was related to disputes and the 10 days. I answered in Part 1; I’m answering it again now. I’m not going to entertain any change to an increase of time from the 10 days. I’ve stated that multiple times in the committee now. I will state it again: I will not entertain any change for the 10 days, because what we don’t want to see either is people receiving too much in terms of the accommodation supplement that then creates a debt that they have to pay back. So we want certainty. If there was a situation, and the previous member stated where the person couldn’t be contacted because they were overseas as an example—so I’m not talking about any change, and I don’t want to be misrepresented in this committee.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I wanted to draw your attention to Subpart 2—this is in clause 26, “Schedule 4 amended”. This is “Amendments to Public and Community Housing Management (Prescribed Elements of Calculation Mechanism) Regulations 2018”. One of the reasons why I want to draw attention to this is because, as you may remember, in Part 1 we discussed the definition of “boarder”, and that’s now been defined in the legislation and changes to the Social Security Act. But in the changes to the amendments to public and community housing management, there’s a different word that has been used. That is “resident”. I did wonder whether that was intentional. For example, this language in these changes that talks about, in clause 29, “(aa) for a person who is an applicable person in relationship to any social housing,—(i) the value of any goods or services provided or paid for—(A) by an additional resident;”.

So the word “resident” is used in this part of the legislation, but I note that she made big efforts to define “boarder” in the Social Security Act amendments—so the Social Security Act and changes in Part 1. I wonder what the rationale was to use different language here, because that, to me, then means she could be creating different sets of categories. What could distinguish a boarder, as she has defined in the Social Security Act, amended under this bill, from a resident? That, to me, doesn’t seem to be the intent. If I’m on the wrong track, I would like to seek some clarification. Once again, I’m asking these questions because this is exactly the kind of stuff on which we could have sought views and opinions and exchange with the Parliamentary Counsel Office and officials, but the only recourse I have, to seek clarification here, is under the committee of the whole House.

So I just want to make sure that the language around “resident” is intended to be this way, or whether she would have meant “boarder”. If it was the former, we would be quite happy to table an amendment to make sure there’s consistency in the language. But we wouldn’t want to do that if this is how the Minister intended it to be.

Again, this is important because, with the Government also moving to remove plain-language use in legislation, I worry that then people reading different parts of the legislation—legislation that she’s changing—that we’ll then start seeing different language.

So to summarise, I’m pointing attention to the Chair to clause 29, the use of the word “resident” and whether this is distinct from the definition she made in relationship to “boarder”.

Subpart 1 of Part 2 is “Amendments to Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992”, which has a different definition. The term “additional resident” in that piece of legislation is equivalent to “boarder” in the Social Security Act.

Stuart Smith: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to draw your attention to 17 tabled amendments that were lodged at 9.50 p.m. by the Labour Party. They are all repetitive. I think they should be—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you. I have got the Clerks working on it. The difficulty we have is that because of the volume, it’s going to take some time to group them, but the Clerks are working on that now.

Stuart Smith: We’d be happy to just take one vote on them—we’d be quite happy.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m sure you would be.

Tangi Utikere: Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is, essentially, the second time that the Government have raised this issue. I would ask that if you’re going to be, effectively, asked to consider that prior to the vote being taken, I would also like to point out that those specific amendments that have been tabled by the Labour Party relate specifically to individual clauses that cross-reference, particularly, other, specific pieces of legislation and other sections. So for Mr Smith to indicate that they are all seeking to perhaps delete a section or a clause, yes, that is correct. However, the implication and impact of those are discretely, quite specifically, in isolation.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): And I assure you, that will all be taken into account.

Stuart Smith: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): No, I think we’ve covered this. We’ve got a team working on it as we speak. We cannot do anything until we get towards the end of the debate to be sure that there are no more tabled amendments and, until then, there’s not very much else we can do.

Stuart Smith: But they are trifling with the House.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): That’s my call.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want the Minister, the Hon Louise Upston, to look at clause 25, and it’s new section 118A, “Discrepancies in information received relevant to income-related rent”. Now, when I went through that paragraph, it was incredibly difficult to make sense of the way it’s written. You go down to (1)(c) of that—sorry, you have to almost read the whole thing to even try to make sense of it—but it seems to be in a very strange order. Some of the matters relate to a process which doubles back on themselves. So you’ve got a process in (1)(c) where you have to have done the following before that takes part. It doesn’t seem a very logical order for things.

And then you have, in new subsection (2), “The agency must notify [people]”. That seems to be something that has to happen over the whole section. So I’m wondering whether the Minister can see that: that there is a process piece which should be all together, and that (2) should be removed and put further down. It belongs to where new subsections (4) and (5) are, because they’re prescriptive for the whole section. I still am not very happy with the way that (c) is worded, because it doesn’t flow. I presume that’s just because people have been incredibly busy rushing this through, but I am concerned about what it means in terms of what order things go in. So if the Minister can just work through, with me, what is it that somebody does under that new section? What order do they go in? Because you’ve got a one-day window, and I’m not sure, reading this, which bits go first, basically. And I know it’s 11 o’clock at night, and it might just be that I haven’t had enough sugar, but I suspect it’s not, and it’s actually because the clause refers to things in a very strange way and it loops right round.

So could the Minister describe what an ordinary person who reads the Hansard or is expected—what is the way that this is supposed to go? Does the Minister know? Because it would be a good start, because I certainly can’t work out which order these things go in, and whether the Minister would have an amendment where we took (2) and we put it down the bottom. I can see the Minister is nodding her head, but that’s not really an answer for the record. So I would like an answer for the record as to whether this clause is suboptimal in its drafting, so that people will get confused; and what happens in the one day? Just what happens in the one day? What is that group supposed to have done, and in what circumstances do they do it? Who do they notify? Do they notify before the one day? Do they notify before the 10 days? Can we just have the order of what’s supposed to happen in that section?

The Ministry of Social Development identifies a discrepancy. They check their records. If they can’t resolve it in one working day, they notify the clients of the discrepancy. Then the 10 days start.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I think I can help everyone tonight, because they’re hearing a lot of repeat questions, so I’m always happy to help the Government in this area. I’m doing that by talking about two or three amendments that I’m sure will help matters. In Part 2, amend clause 23: after the words “household income”, insert and replace it with “household residential pūtea”. I think the Government will be happy with that. That’s Māori, just in case some of them didn’t know on the other side. I’m going down this track because, given what’s happening and given that we’ve got a Minister tonight who hasn’t answered one Māori question, it’s probably appropriate that I put another Māori question and another Māori amendment. While there’s complaints about repetition, us on the Māori side here haven’t had one response with regards to partnership, with regards to commitment, with regards to te reo Māori, and so that’s why I want to help the Minister by putting up a very reasonable amendment like that. Amend clause 23, after the words “household income”, by inserting and replacing with “household residential pūtea”.

Also, I want to go even a little bit further, just for the Government, because I know in their hearts they want to support te reo Māori but, sadly, have shown some sort of strange attitude and strategy towards it over the last few days, particularly with regards to the Māori language signs. In Part 2, amend clause 23, after the words “household income”, by inserting another option, “household pūtea”. It’s another amendment.

Then another one, just for the Minister to consider, is after clause 23, insert and replace it with “household kete moni”, which is about having money in a kit—very, very accessible for Māori at ground level—

Joseph Mooney: Are you gifting it to the House, Willie?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —Mr Mooney, who have been suffering under your Government and need some support. So I’m asking again, in connection with the earlier questions, what is the commitment from this Government in the Treaty area? What is the relationship with ngā iwi Māori, with mātāwaka? What is the consultation process? All of this is linked to the Māori questions, and I think it’s appropriate, given the Minister’s own organisation—the Ministry for Social Development (MSD)—is particularly clear about this—

Joseph Mooney: Only got one minute 51 seconds—you can do it.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —that there has to be regard for the negative statistics and the huge disparities that are happening at the moment. Mr Mooney knows, as he chairs our Social Services and Community Committee. Sadly, he doesn’t understand what I’m talking about tonight, but it goes with the flow in terms of National Party MPs. But we have MSD, who are the major player here, saying to the Minister, saying to the Government, that there must be some regard for Māori. There must be some regard in terms of the partnership. And we’ve had a Minister here tonight who hasn’t answered one question, not one question, with regards to Māori, whether it’s from me, the Greens, Te Pāti Māori—not one response have we had. What does that say to our communities out there? It says that we have got a Government that does not—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Come back to the bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’m coming back to it. We’ve got a Government that doesn’t care about te reo Māori, doesn’t care about the statistics, doesn’t care about what’s happening at ground level. So I reiterate: Part 2, amend clause 23 after the words “household income” by inserting and replacing it—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Got it.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —with “household kete moni”. You got that, Madam Chair? You don’t need me to continue? No? Quite happy to! Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m going to take one or two more questions, but I’ve got to say, even the Labour Party is saying they’re repeating themselves, so there’s very little left here. I’ll take a call from Steve Willis.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you, Madam Chair. So—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry, Scott Willis. Sorry.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate this opportunity, because this is the first time I have been able to take a call on this subject. [Interruption] I hear some surprise from across the committee. My real concern for this in Part 2 is that I’m thinking that we have an issue here with the healthy homes Act, and what we’re understanding is that this Act has been in place for quite some time—

Hon Member: 1992.

SCOTT WILLIS: —1992, in fact—and this is something that we are finding that even Kāinga Ora isn’t aware of or isn’t necessarily making sure that properties are up to scratch. So if we’re thinking that we are now looking at the increase in rent for Kāinga Ora homes—this is clause 20, replacing section 73(4) with: “In the case of an increase in rent, the notice must comply with section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, except—(a) subsections (1)(d) to (h) and (1A) of that section do not apply to the increase in rent if Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities has received a notification from the agency under sections 106 and 118A(3) of this Act that the rent for the housing must be its market rent for the time being: (b) to the extent that section 74 of this Act provides otherwise, in any other case.”

Now, my concern is that we don’t know—we don’t know—whether the rent, and how appropriate Kāinga Ora has been with its tenants to make sure that the properties that they are renting respect the healthy homes Act. So the answer I’d like from the Minister is: if we are assuring that they are complying with the Act, which Acts are they complying with? Are they also complying with the healthy homes Act? Because we know that this is not something that is being complied with at the moment, and this is something that has been widely—widely—talked about—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): As it relates to this bill.

SCOTT WILLIS: So to bring it back to the changes in rent, which is the section 73 amended, if the Minister could be clear, if we are looking at rental properties, how are we going to make sure that these properties are actually suitable to be rented? Are they up to standard? Are they meeting existing Acts, or is this simply a fix that is ignoring the problems that already exist in the sector? So if the Minister could give us a response to that, I would really appreciate it.

If you’d forgive me, Madam Chair, I’ve come to this with a particular focus, because this is something that is a real problem for our most vulnerable, and it happens even to those who are renting Kāinga Ora homes. So we need to be mindful not to create extra problems, extra situations, by overlooking the existing challenge that we have.

So I’d really appreciate a response from the Minister, and that is in relation to “Section 73 amended (Changes in rent)”. The section that says, “Replace section 73(4)”—and I read that out before, so you can pick that up. But also, clause 21, “Section 93 amended (Changes in rent)” “Replace section 93(4) with: (4) In the case of an increase in rent, the notice must comply with section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986”, which relates to the healthy homes standards. So if the Minister would like to give a response, I would really appreciate it. Thank you.

This is a very simple piece of legislation. It’s very tight. It’s about the relationship between boarders and the accommodation supplement and their income-related rent. It’s got nothing to do with the healthy homes regime. I know that that might be of interest to that member, but it has got zero to do with this bill.

I move that debate on this now close.

The question is that debate on this question now close.

Arena Williams: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): All those in favour, please say Aye.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: A point of order was called.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We’re taking a vote. All those in favour, please say Aye, to the contrary, No.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Ayes have it. The question is agreed. Point of order, Kieran McAnulty.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Madam Chair, Arena Williams sought a point of order before the vote was called. She informed you of that and you ignored her. That is totally inappropriate.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I had already called her—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: She called the point of order beforehand.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Well, I’m sorry; I did not hear it. There was so much racket. I can take the point of order now.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought you might like to know that the motion was incorrectly put by the member; it did not follow the prescribed wording for such a motion.

OK.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that debate on this question now close. All those in favour—

Tangi Utikere: Point of order. Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I am putting a vote—

Tangi Utikere: Madam Chair, you’re not able to. There were two consecutive closure motions that you have sought.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Settle down. We’re just going to get some advice on putting the correct motion.

Tangi Utikere: Can I speak to the point of order?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Not just now. [Pause in proceedings] So my decision stands, and the question was agreed to.

Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. In light of that, given that there is specific wording outlined, in the Standing Orders, for the way in which a closure motion must be put—and it is contended that it was not put—to then accept, following on from that, another closure motion, although a correct closure motion, without seeking to give it to an Opposition party or anyone else who is seeking the call for another purpose is, we contend, out of order and we invite you to perhaps reconsider your decision. Otherwise, I will move that the Speaker be recalled.

Speaking to the point of order: two points, Madam Chair. The first is that I understand the motion needs to be close to, but doesn’t have to be, exact. The second point is that it’s actually disorderly to interrupt a vote, which is what has happened.

And that is the advice that I have received from the clerks: if I understood what the closure motion meant, even though the wording wasn’t exactly correct, it was fine—at the end of the day, it was my call. I did put another one to get the wording correct, but the decision is still the same.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this a new point of order?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I’m going to seek an action that I can only do through a point of order, Madam Chair—so, point of order.

Point of order—Kieran McAnulty.

I move to recall the Speaker. [Pause in proceedings]

Protocol says that I need to put the question that the Speaker be recalled. All those in favour, please say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Noes have it.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: The convention is that it is not voted against.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Well, that’s the advice I was given. This is the—[Pause in proceedings] OK, right, we have got some clarification from the clerks and some Standing Orders. I was able to put the question that the Speaker be recalled. However, by convention, members do not oppose a motion to recall the Speaker, but if a party vote is called for, I declare the result on voices. That’s referring to Speaker’s ruling 81/2.

Point of order. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Now, given you were quite happy to take two closure motions concurrently, which in itself is against convention, surely you would, therefore, given you’ve just read out that Speaker’s ruling, be willing to put the question again, and perhaps the Government members may like to reflect on their decision given that it is against the convention of the House. No one here, I’m certain, can recall another occasion when that, indeed, was done.

Speaking to the point of order, I think the member may have a short memory, because that member himself voted against exactly this motion in the last Parliament and voted down an attempt by the then Opposition to recall the Speaker. But that point aside, Madam Chair, it is clear that you have the sole discretion to rule on closures. You have done so and then been interrupted repeatedly, which is disorderly. The vote should stand.

That is the advice I have been given as well.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this is a new point of order, Kieran McAnulty?

I move to recall the Speaker.

The question is that the Speaker be recalled. All those in favour, please say Aye, to the contrary, No.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Party vote. Record it on record.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): A party vote is called for. If a party vote is called for, the Speaker’s ruling says that it’s declared on the voices.

Tangi Utikere: Well, how did you declare it?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Well, I haven’t got to that yet, because I was interrupted by a point of order. The Noes have it.

Tangi Utikere: Unbelievable.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The reality is, in declaring or accepting any motions on the floor, that it’s the sole discretion of the Chair.

Tangi Utikere: Unbelievable.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Maybe it is hard to believe, but that is the rule. We are going to change Chair—

Joseph Mooney: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this a new point of order? Because I don’t think we need to be—

This is a new point of order. It’s highly disorderly for a member to be challenging the chair.

Tangi Utikere: She can determine that herself; she doesn’t need you to help her out.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): And it is a matter for me. Maybe it’s just the hour; I think we all need to settle down.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I’m wide awake now.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): So am I. We’re just waiting on a new Chair to come.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to confirm, we are awaiting the vote to be conducted.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes, we are.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: The closure motion having been accepted, the vote will now take place, presumably?

Yes, but we’re just waiting to change roster. It appears that there’s still a closure motion in front of the committee, because I did take a second one. I’m going to put the closure motion again: that debate on this question now close. A party vote is called for.

OK, people, we’ve got ourselves into a situation here where we have a huge number of amendments, which haven’t had a chance to be grouped. We have a vote that has been called. We have a couple of options. One of them is we start voting and someone may choose to seek leave, at midnight, to pause voting and we can carry on voting in the morning, or we are just going to have to take it one vote at a time, and it’s going to be a very long night.

Point of order. Madam Chair, I raised this before—with the previous Chair—that there are so many amendments that are so close together, which—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, we know that, but we haven’t had a chance—they are still actually coming in, Mr Smith. The amendments were coming in as I was out there, and there has not been a chance to group—I don’t have groupings in front of me.

STUART SMITH: Well, I do, and they are here in—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s a decision for the Chairperson, not for the committee, and I—

STUART SMITH: I realise—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, I’m not going to set a process that’s going to create a precedent.

STUART SMITH: Well, I realise that, Madam Chair, but the point is here that what will happen with this is you’re setting a precedent where members can jam the system up by throwing in a whole lot of amendments just prior to a vote going in so that they can, effectively, filibuster the House. That has consequences that will be quite long-lasting, and remember that the sides of the House change from time to time, and the other members on the other side will experience the same thing.

Look, we get all that—we get all that—but I don’t have—

Speaking to the point of order, the first point is that I don’t think it’s appropriate for members to threaten others with future actions of that nature. But it is actually quite clear—and it is spelt out in the Standing Orders—that proposed amendments that are similar in nature can be grouped.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: But it seems to me that your explanation to the committee is that the clerks in the Table Office simply haven’t had the time to be able to do that—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s right.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —before the vote was called, and the fact that the closure motion was accepted when it did and the vote commenced when it did—that has caused the issue. It’s not a situation of precedents being set. The rules are quite clearly outlined in the Standing Orders, and if your suggestion to the committee is that we can either commence voting now and every member remain on precinct for quite some time, or that we get the leave of the committee to conclude the vote at 5 to midnight, then I, therefore, seek the leave of the committee to commence the votes and conclude the vote at 5 minutes to midnight to allow the Chair to be able to report progress.

Leave is sought for that—

Joseph Mooney: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, leave has been sought, though; I want to actually put that. I just want to clarify that leave would be sought to suspend the vote at midnight, but it wouldn’t be reporting progress—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. Leave is—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Just for that clarification—simply trying to put into motion what you’ve suggested is one of the options of the committee, and if that’s how it’s worded, then I so word it.

Stuart Smith: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): A point of order—it was Joseph Mooney first.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for that clarity. Under Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand section 38.12.3—and I’ll just read it out, because it was mentioned before—“Where multiple similar amendments are proposed to a single provision, the Chairperson may select a handful of indicative amendments on which to put a question in order to test the will of the committee.”

I get that, Mr Mooney, but I haven’t actually had the ability to have those in front of me to do that process, and I’m not going to accept that someone else has done that process.

Stuart Smith: This is a different point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): A different point of order.

Madam Chair, the leave was sought to suspend the House at 5 to 12, to be precise—so just to ensure that the member’s leave is actually correct in what he said.

Yeah, so I am going to put—so we’re very clear, I would like the Hon Kieran McAnulty to repeat the leave that he has sought so that everybody is very clear on what he was asking for.

OK. I thought we’d sorted that, actually, but anyway—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, well, I think we have, too—well, I think we have. I’m clear on what you’ve said, but I just want to make sure that the committee is.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: All right. On the basis of this discussion and the advice and guidance that you’ve given, I seek leave for the committee to suspend the vote at midnight.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?

Hon Members: Yes.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to delete clause 19 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 20 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 20, new section 73(4)(a), to replace all the words after “rent if” with “the agency considers it to be in the interests of fairness to the tenant” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 21 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 22 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 23 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘household manaakitanga’ ” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘household/kāinga income’ ” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘household/whānau income’ ” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘household kete moni’ ” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘household pūtea’ ” be agreed to.

The Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘household residential pūtea’ ” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘household revenue’ ” be agreed to.

Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that last one is an example here of the challenge we’re running into, and I refer to specifically—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, I—[Interruption] No, Mr van de Molen, we have run ourselves into a space where I made it very clear, as the Chair, that we didn’t have time to have them grouped and analysed. The committee has made a decision to go forward on the vote, and on that basis, we’re going to carry on with the vote.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: I’m not talking about grouping, Madam Chair. If I can complete my point of order, you’ll understand where I’m referring to. It’s specifically Speaker’s ruling 128/5, which states—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Naughty, naughty.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —this is a point of order, which is to be heard in silence—“Proposing amendments that simply seek to change the order of the words in a particular clause, or to substitute words with the same or very similar meaning—”. That last one was a prime example where the word “income” was proposed to be changed to “revenue”—

Well, look—[Interruption] No, Mr van de Molen will resume—[Interruption] Resume your seat, Mr van de Molen. We made it very clear before the vote, and the committee made its decision.

The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘residence income’ ” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘residence revenue’ ” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘property income’ ” be agreed to.

The Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘household moolah’ ” is out of order as not being a serious amendment.

The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘whānau earnings’ ” be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to Part 2 to replace references to “62%” and “38%” with “50%” be agreed to.

The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 23(4) and (6) to replace references to “62%” with “30%” be agreed to.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to 23(4) and (6) to replace references to “62%” with “28%”, I am ruling out—[Interruption] There’s a lot of talking going on. No one will know what they’re voting for in a minute. I’m ruling that one out because it’s inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

I am also ruling out Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to 23(4) and (6) to replace references to “62%” with “25%” as also inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to 23(4) and (6) inserting “that exceed $600 per week” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 24 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clause 25, new section 118A, to replace “discrepancy” and “discrepancies” with “inconsistency” and “inconsistencies” in each place be agreed to.

The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “10 working days” be agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, I’m ruling out as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee, because it’s also looking at changing “working days”.

I’m ruling out Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 25, which is also looking at replacing “working days”, as inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

I’m also ruling out Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 25, which is looking at replacing “1 working day” with “30 working days”, as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

I am ruling out Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 25, looking to replace “1 working day” with “15 working days”, as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendments to clause 25, new section 118A(3), replacing “10 working days” with “15 working days” be agreed to.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(3), is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment—Helen White’s amendment to clause 25.

I am ruling out Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, which is wanting to replace “10 working days” with “20 working days”, as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

I am ruling on Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 25 replacing “10 working days” with “30 working days” as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

I am ruling out Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 25 replacing “10 working days” with “60 working days” as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(3), replacing “the agency must” with “the agency may use its discretion whether or not to” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendments to clause 25, new section 118A(3)(a) and (b), replacing “must” with “may” be agreed to.

I’m just going to pause for a second. [Pause in proceedings] The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to delete clause 26 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to delete clause 27 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to delete clause 28 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘family income’ ” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words “household income”, insert “and replace it with ‘whānau income’ ” be agreed to.

The amendment in the name of the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan—the tabled amendment to clause 23(1)—is inconsistent with a previous decision that has already been taken, so is out of scope.

The next amendment—“The question is, That the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1)”—is also inconsistent with a previous decision, so is also ruled out of scope.

The question “That the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words ‘household income’, insert ‘and replace it with “household stipend” ’ ” is also inconsistent with a previous decision and is out of scope.

The question “That the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 23(1) to, after the words ‘household income’, insert ‘and replace it with “household earnings” ’ ” is also inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “10 working days” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment by Helen White.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “12 working days” be agreed to.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘3 working days’…” is inconsistent with a previous decision and ruled out of scope.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘5 calendar days’ be agreed to.” is inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘1 month’…” is also inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘2 months’…” is also inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘9 weeks’…” is also inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “a sensible time period” be agreed to.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘a time to be agreed with the boarder’…” is inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “a time to be determined by Order in Council on or before 1 January 2026” be agreed to.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘60 hours’…” is inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘48 hours’…” is inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘6 calendar days’…” is inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question—for those of you who have fallen asleep—“That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘1 working week’…” is inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “6 days or 12 days at the election of the agency” be agreed to.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘17 days’…” is inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘3,264 minutes’…” is inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘6,478 minutes’…” is ruled as inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘3 Mondays in a row’…” is ruled inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The question “That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘14 calendar days’…” is ruled inconsistent with a previous decision and is ruled out of scope.

The Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 20, section 73(4), “after the word ‘rent’, inserting ‘that appropriate consideration is given to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi’ ” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “1 day of work” is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

The Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “1 day outside the weekend” is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

The Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “2 days of employment” is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

The Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “2 days of paid activity” is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

The Hon Kieran McAnulty’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “1 day of paid activity” is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

The Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “20 days of paid activity” is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

The Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “30 working days” is out of order as being the same in substance as another amendment.

The Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “30 days of paid activity” is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

The Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “30 days of paid activity” is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “145 calendar days” be agreed to.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “3 Mondays in a row or consecutively” is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

The question “That Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing ‘1 working day’ with ‘2 working days’…” is ruled as inconsistent with a previous a decision and is out of scope. There will be a brief pause while we wait for more amendments. [Pause in proceedings]

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “3,264 hours” be agreed to.

Did I hear a point of order?

Hon Member: Rachel’s being unruly.

Look, the evening is, at the moment, unique. It’s not going to be assisted by any calls from the floor. Thank you, members.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “21 days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision.

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “6 days or 12 days at the election of the agency or its delegated authority” be agreed to.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “2 working weeks” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “7 calendar days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “48.5 hours” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “48 hours” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “a time to be determined by Order in Council no later than 1 January 2026” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Ingrid Leary’s six tabled amendments to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments amending clause 23, new section 107, are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “8 working days” be agreed to.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “11 working days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “1 working work” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “2 working days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “7 working days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “15 working days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “20 working days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “10 working days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “12 working days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “14 working days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “1 week” be agreed to.

The question is that Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), replacing “1 working day” with “3 months” be agreed to.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), to replace “1 working day” with “1 week” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), to replace “1 working day” with “4 calendar days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), to replace “1 working day” with “13 working days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), to replace “1 working day” with “11 working days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), to replace “1 working day” with “11 working days” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), to replace “1 working day” with “a reasonable period of time” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(c), to replace “1 working day” with “a time to be agreed with the boarders and their aunt or uncle” is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(3), to replace “10 working days” with “a reasonable time given all the circumstances of A and B” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1), to delete subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) be agreed to.

The Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1), to deleted subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1), to delete subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1), to delete subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b) is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1), to delete subparagraph (i) of paragraph (c) is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1), to delete subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (c) is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1), in subparagraph (i) of paragraph (c), to replace “agency” with “Crown” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(2), to replace “reasonable” with “is considered fairly in the circumstances and” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(3), to replace “first working day” with “next practical opportunity” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, subsection (3) of new section 118A, to replace “registered community housing provider” with “housing agency whether public or community” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A paragraph (b) of subsection (3), be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s tabled amendment to clause 25, subsection (4) of new section 118A, be agreed to.

The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to clause 25, new section 118A(1)(a), inserting new subparagraph (iii) be agreed to.